THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH SITAMARHI v. MOSTT. NIRMALA DEVI WIFE OF LATE LALLAN RAI

would not find any infirmity in the findings and conclusion recorded in paragraph no.20, especially when the Tribunal has come to a specific finding in paragraph no.17 that Rama Pratap Rai or Rama Pratap Das was the same person and as such, the defence of the appellant Insurance Company of Bihar licence being not in the name of the driver had been 4 over ruled. This Court is also in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the owner of the vehicle that if the owner had a firm belief on the driver having obtained a valid licence, it could not be said to be a case of malafide or non-contravention of breach of condition of the policy. The Tribunal, infact, having recorded all these findings with regard to an existing valid licence from 1994 onwards in the name of the driver has left the matter open for the appellant Insurance Company by recording the following findings: Company Insurance “Hence, in consideration of the above facts I am of the view that the insurer of the vehicle, O.P. Oriental liable compensation. However, if at any time contrary is proved or it is found that the owner has committed any breach of the condition of the policy and he deliberately made over the vehicle to such a driver who was not possessed of valid driving licence, the Insurance Company may sue the owner to recover the amount. But, for the present in view of the discussion made above I come to the conclusion Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.” The appellant Insurance Company having been thus given liberty and in fact 5 not required to institute a separate suit will, therefore, always have the option to find out the details of Bihar licence and in case it is proved by the appellant Insurance Company that the vehicle owner knowingly and deliberately had engaged a driver who had no valid licence on the date of accident it can definitely take recourse of recovery of amount and atleast on that score this Court would not find any error in such approach of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. No other point has been argued by the counsel for the Insurance Company and therefore, this appeal is disposed of with a clarification that the appellant Insurance Company in the event of satisfying the requirement in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment would be at liberty to claim the amount of compensation from the owner respondent no.6. After the aforesaid order has been dictated, counsel appellant Insurance Company assures this Court that the amount as directed in the impugned judgment shall be paid to the claimants within a period of two months from the date 6 of receipt/ production of a copy of this order without waiting for initiating or getting an order for recovery of the amount from the owner. It is thus observed that in case the said amount of compensation is not paid by the appellant Insurance Company to the claimant Respondent no. 1 to 5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order the Insurance Company will also become liable to pay additional penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim which would be in addition to the interest which has been granted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. With the aforesaid observation and clarification appeal finally disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/